ROHIM UDDIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2012 recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, in Sessions Case No.124/2007, convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 1(one) year.

(2.) The prosecution story as revealed from the first information report lodged by Mustt. Amina Khatun (PW-1) as well as from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that on the night of 19.03.2007 the accused appellant, who was residing with his wife Almina Khatun (deceased), killed her and thereafter fled away with the gold and silver ornaments. The Officer-in-Charge of Rangsai Police Outpost based on the first information report (Ext.-1) lodged by Amina Khatun (PW-1) on 20.03.2007 alleging that when her daughter Almina Khatun (deceased) and her husband Rohim Uddin (accused appellant) did not get up from bed till 7 O'clock on the morning of 20.03.2007, she as well as other members of the family opened the door and found Almina Khatun laying dead on her bed and also did not find her husband, who has fled away from the house with the gold and silver ornaments, G.D. Entry No.244 dated 20.03.2007 was registered in the Outpost, which was thereafter registered as Lakhipur P.S. Case No.33/2007 under Section 302/380 IPC. The police during investigation recorded the statements of the witnesses, who were acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case under Section 161 Cr.P.C., conducted the inquest on the dead body and sent the same for post mortem examination. The Investigating Officer has also arrested the accused appellant. On completion of the investigation charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC was submitted against the accused appellant. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, based on which Sessions Case No.124/2007 was registered and numbered. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC, which when read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial commenced.

(3.) During the course of trial the prosecution examined 8(eight) witnesses, namely, Mustt. Amina Khatun (PW-1), mother of the deceased, who lodged the first information report; Md. Abdul Monnaf (PW-2), the paternal uncle of the deceased; Md. Haren Ali (PW-3), the local Gaonbura; Md. Fulbar Rahman (PW-4), the brother of the deceased; Md. Abu Hanif Sheikh (PW-5), cousin brother of the deceased; Md. Bahar Uddin (PW-6), a co-villager; Dr. Deepak Kr. Sarma (PW-7), who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and submitted the post mortem examination report (Ext.-4) and Sri Sankar Das (PW-8), the Investigating Officer. The witnesses were duly cross-examined by the defence. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. The defence has also examined two witnesses, namely, the accused appellant himself as DW-1 and Sri Ainul Haque, a co-villager of the accused appellant as DW-2.